WINNER - "BEST LIVE ROCK ALBUM OF ALL-TIME" QUEEN "LIVE AT WEMBLEY" Congratulations to Queen and all their fans!

Second place Bon Jovi- One wild night Eliminated Live albums: Deep Purple- Made in Japan Framptom comes alive Aerosmith- Live Bootleg Led Zeppelin- The song remains the same Kiss alive! Cheap Trick- Live at Budokan Journey- Captured Bruce Springsteen and the E Street band 1975-1985

As a first generation Queen fan, I.e; grew up with there music in the 70's and saw them live three times in the 80's, I have to say that Queen were a brilliant live act. There stage shows were always second to none and a Queen show was always an event not just another night on the tour. However I always say that 'you had to be there'. In isolation, a Queen live album is not even half the experience. You had to feel the excitement of the show, be there to feel that rapport with Fred when he led the audience or feel the affection from the crowd as Brian stepped forward for a solo.

The Band above all people understood this, understood that the show was multi dimentional and that, of course, they could not hope to reproduce on stage the multi-layered and incredible quality of there studio perfection. How typical of them to leave the stage during the opera section of 'Rhapsody' in the knowledge that they could not hope to do it justice with just four people on stage.

With all this in mind; my conclusion is that Queen were never at there best in the isolation of a recorded live performance. Many other bands; The Who, Thin Lizzy to name but two, have recorded seminal live albums. Queen, in my humble opinion, did not. Their considerable contribution lay elsewhere. In the incredible body of work they recorded, particularly the 70's albums.

So, really, Live at Wembley isn't even QUEEN's best live album let alone the best live album of all time. I was at the show but when re-living on the Cd or DVD you begin to realise that; a. Freds voice was far from it's best, and b, Brians performance was patchy, ie; great on 'A Kind of Magic' and not so good during his solo or 'Forever' for example. The overall sound of the show seems a little under par too. It was a marvellous event but, like I said, you had to be there and 'Queen rock montreal', 'Queen on fire' and even 'Live Killers' are all far, far superior in my opinion. 'Live Aid' is too short for an album release but that would win hands down.

As a first generation Queen fan, I.e; grew up with there music in the 70's and saw them live three times in the 80's, I have to say that Queen were a brilliant live act. There stage shows were always second to none and a Queen show was always an event not just another night on the tour. However I always say that 'you had to be there'. In isolation, a Queen live album is not even half the experience. You had to feel the excitement of the show, be there to feel that rapport with Fred when he led the audience or feel the affection from the crowd as Brian stepped forward for a solo.

The Band above all people understood this, understood that the show was multi dimentional and that, of course, they could not hope to reproduce on stage the multi-layered and incredible quality of there studio perfection. How typical of them to leave the stage during the opera section of 'Rhapsody' in the knowledge that they could not hope to do it justice with just four people on stage.

With all this in mind; my conclusion is that Queen were never at there best in the isolation of a recorded live performance. Many other bands; The Who, Thin Lizzy to name but two, have recorded seminal live albums. Queen, in my humble opinion, did not. Their considerable contribution lay elsewhere. In the incredible body of work they recorded, particularly the 70's albums.

So, really, Live at Wembley isn't even QUEEN's best live album let alone the best live album of all time. I was at the show but when re-living on the Cd or DVD you begin to realise that; a. Freds voice was far from it's best, and b, Brians performance was patchy, ie; great on 'A Kind of Magic' and not so good during his solo or 'Forever' for example. The overall sound of the show seems a little under par too. It was a marvellous event but, like I said, you had to be there and 'Queen rock montreal', 'Queen on fire' and even 'Live Killers' are all far, far superior in my opinion. 'Live Aid' is too short for an album release but that would win hands down.

As a first generation Queen fan, I.e; grew up with there music in the 70's and saw them live three times in the 80's, I have to say that Queen were a brilliant live act. There stage shows were always second to none and a Queen show was always an event not just another night on the tour. However I always say that 'you had to be there'. In isolation, a Queen live album is not even half the experience. You had to feel the excitement of the show, be there to feel that rapport with Fred when he led the audience or feel the affection from the crowd as Brian stepped forward for a solo.

The Band above all people understood this, understood that the show was multi dimentional and that, of course, they could not hope to reproduce on stage the multi-layered and incredible quality of there studio perfection. How typical of them to leave the stage during the opera section of 'Rhapsody' in the knowledge that they could not hope to do it justice with just four people on stage.

With all this in mind; my conclusion is that Queen were never at there best in the isolation of a recorded live performance. Many other bands; The Who, Thin Lizzy to name but two, have recorded seminal live albums. Queen, in my humble opinion, did not. Their considerable contribution lay elsewhere. In the incredible body of work they recorded, particularly the 70's albums.

So, really, Live at Wembley isn't even QUEEN's best live album let alone the best live album of all time. I was at the show but when re-living on the Cd or DVD you begin to realise that; a. Freds voice was far from it's best, and b, Brians performance was patchy, ie; great on 'A Kind of Magic' and not so good during his solo or 'Forever' for example. The overall sound of the show seems a little under par too. It was a marvellous event but, like I said, you had to be there and 'Queen rock montreal', 'Queen on fire' and even 'Live Killers' are all far, far superior in my opinion. 'Live Aid' is too short for an album release but that would win hands down.

As a first generation Queen fan, I.e; grew up with there music in the 70's and saw them live three times in the 80's, I have to say that Queen were a brilliant live act. There stage shows were always second to none and a Queen show was always an event not just another night on the tour. However I always say that 'you had to be there'. In isolation, a Queen live album is not even half the experience. You had to feel the excitement of the show, be there to feel that rapport with Fred when he led the audience or feel the affection from the crowd as Brian stepped forward for a solo.

The Band above all people understood this, understood that the show was multi dimentional and that, of course, they could not hope to reproduce on stage the multi-layered and incredible quality of there studio perfection. How typical of them to leave the stage during the opera section of 'Rhapsody' in the knowledge that they could not hope to do it justice with just four people on stage.

With all this in mind; my conclusion is that Queen were never at there best in the isolation of a recorded live performance. Many other bands; The Who, Thin Lizzy to name but two, have recorded seminal live albums. Queen, in my humble opinion, did not. Their considerable contribution lay elsewhere. In the incredible body of work they recorded, particularly the 70's albums.

So, really, Live at Wembley isn't even QUEEN's best live album let alone the best live album of all time. I was at the show but when re-living on the Cd or DVD you begin to realise that; a. Freds voice was far from it's best, and b, Brians performance was patchy, ie; great on 'A Kind of Magic' and not so good during his solo or 'Forever' for example. The overall sound of the show seems a little under par too. It was a marvellous event but, like I said, you had to be there and 'Queen rock montreal', 'Queen on fire' and even 'Live Killers' are all far, far superior in my opinion. 'Live Aid' is too short for an album release but that would win hands down.

Well, it always helps to have the input of someone who followed Queen's career and watched their gigs back in the 70 and 80's.

I'm si(y?)mpathetic to the view of "having to be there": Mahler had a witty dictum for it. I agree that music really happens when you're there, facing the artist and getting all the sound as it comes, without filters and "airbags" in case of risky moves. The exciting of it is irrepraceable. Watching the people you admire actually getting nervous on stage (!) - there's a pianist I love whose recital I attended who I thought was a robot and unable to do mistakes...but although he's really otherwordly, he was actually nervous in the recital and had his share of fumbles and mistakes...

I love it.

Though I think both Live Montreal and Milton Keynes are underated. It's not just that both are great live albums - now I'm talking about live albums only. They're also representative of a mixture of technical accuracy, brilliant musicianship and amazing visuals, effects and showmanship that are so rare, I mean. Very rare for rock bands, really.

I prefer any of those to any Who release any time, though, of course, I do respect the mainstream consensus about the best live albums and Queen is usually not there, and sometimes the reasons people bring up are sound, I have to be fair.

On a personal level, though, I prefer these two, and even Wembley, to any Who release. It may sound outrageous, but I can't have fun with Who live albums, I think they were really bad live, bad to the point of hurting one's ear. Roger Daltrey couldn't get in tune, I can't stand "Who At Leeds", and I LIKE THE SONGS! But then..."we're not gonna take it" is a disgrace, it sounds so ugly, pinbal wizard...they do a wonderful job in the classic cover of Summertime Blues, though. Townshend's way of delivering the annoying "parental advise" lines. Hehehe.

Well, just a question:

Are you experiencing any kind of problem posting here? Because your message showed up here 4 times!!!

And I read all the four cause I thought you might be doing ammendments to the thing, you see...lol

Yes, lots of problems. It's all over the place. 4 times here and it's in other places too. To make it worse I just complained to the administrator that I couldn't find it. Ha ha ha. Being a first generation Queen fan has it's disadvantages, like age and techno fear. I'm probably going to get thrown out....

Yes, lots of problems. It's all over the place. 4 times here and it's in other places too. To make it worse I just complained to the administrator that I couldn't find it. Ha ha ha. Being a first generation Queen fan has it's disadvantages, like age and techno fear. I'm probably going to get thrown out....

Haha. No way! I hope you have a good time here. I liked your post a lot and your opinion is very, very valuable, it's great to read people who have actually lived the dreams of many of us!

I´ve been a Queen admirer since 1977 and I fully agree on the verdict about Live at Wembley that: - Capture the ultimate show is (with a postmodernistic term) "hyperreal". (Over realistic). - To deliver about 120 minutes flawless playing without any sour notes it´s impossible if you move around like Freddie did all the time. No musician are a sports athlet. - With todays "audio ear plugs" Freddie would have singed a lot better - but he just went for it and didn´t bother if some notes would reach out of the harmony paragraphs.

It was "the event" that was importened, to be there. When I first saw the Wembley show on VHS in 1990, it was always Freddies voice that made med think "such a shame" when they offered the best show in town. But that´s life. Freddies precense was far enough better than most singers anyway, even when he´s voice couldn´t deliver 100%.

The Rainbow (74) Montreal (81), Milton Keynes (82) and Budapest (the Magic Tour 86) are very much Queen in their prime as entertainers.

Let´s hope for a 70´s DVD soon. I think Queen production should rethink and not always see the problems with the quality. They don´t have to remix the audio in 5.1 surround. I think it´s enough with a good traditional remastered stereo mix in Dolby digital 2.0. And with the picture quality, you can´t do a miracle (even though it´s possible to do remarkable things in the digital masteringprocess).

Live Killers was my favourite live album back in 79 and now 30 years on it makes me happy everytime I hear it. Few could match the rawness and live feeling Queen had when they were on top.

It's a great live document but I don't think it's their best, not in the slightest. Certainly doesn't rate very highly among other live DVDs I own/borrow. I'm thinking about Thin Lizzy stuff, The Band with that Last Waltz DVD, the Concert for George... some Jimi things I've seen... The Who Isle of Wight DVD... even the parts of the Led Zeppelin DVD where Jimmy Page isn't soloing, that stuff is better. Live at Wembley simply isn't their banner performance. To be quite honest, their best stuff isn't on DVD yet.

"Your not funny, your not a good musician, theres a difference between being funny and being an idiot, you obviously being the latter" - Dave R Fuller